Concepts of ‘Liberal Approach’, ‘Justice Oriented Approach’, ‘Substantial Justice’ Not to Be Employed To Frustrate Substantial Law Of Limitation: SC
The Supreme Court was considering an appeal against a Karnataka High Court judgment condoning the delay of about 2200 days.
The Supreme Court set aside a judgment of the Karnataka High Court condoning the delay of about 2200 days and reminded the District judiciary as well the High Courts that the concepts such as “liberal approach”, “Justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation.
The Appeal before the Apex Court arose from the judgment of the High Court whereby the order rejecting the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 was set aside.
The Division Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan remarked, “We are constrained to observe that the High Court has exhibited complete absence of judicial conscience and restraints, which a judge is expected to maintain while adjudicating a lis between the parties.”
Senior Advocate Anand Sanjay M Nuli represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Rajesh Mahale represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The suit schedule property was purchased by one Venkatappa in the year 1916. Thereafter, he sold a portion of the suit property and retained the balance portion. Vide a registered family partition, the suit schedule property came to be divided between Venkatappa and his brother. A suit for injunction came to be filed by Venkatappa against his family members which came to be subsequently withdrawn.
One C.R. Narayana Reddy had filed a suit for specific performance against the appellants with respect to the land and the appellants were directed to refund the earnest amount that had been paid to them. The deceased Respondent No.1 impleaded himself as Defendant claiming to have purchased the suit property from the Defendants but no relief was granted. On the very same cause of action, the deceased Respondent No. 1 filed a suit which came to be dismissed as having stood abated.
Thereafter, the Respondents proceeded to file applications under Order 22 Rule 4, Order 32 Rule 1 & 2 and Order 22 Rule 9 respectively before the Trial Court seeking to set aside the abatement and bring the legal heirs on record but the same too was dismissed. The Respondents proceeded to file an application for recall which was rejected. The trial court noted there was an inordinate delay of 6 years in filing the application for recall and the cause shown was insufficient. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondents challenged the Order before the High Court wherein the High Court allowed the Writ Petition thereby condoning the delay of about 2200 days.
Reasoning
The Bench noticed that the suit has been pending for 48 years for the recording of evidence and indisputably, there was a delay of 6 years (about 2200 days) in filing the application for recall itself.
From the tenor of the approach of the respondents, it appeared that they wanted to fix their own period of limitation for the purpose of instituting the proceedings for which the law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations, the Bench added.
“Time and again, the Supreme Court has reminded the District judiciary as well the High courts that the concepts such as “liberal approach”, “Justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation”, the Bench observed.
The Division Bench further explained that the court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.
Thus, allowing the appeal and restoring the order of the High Court, the Bench concluded, “We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. No court should keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time.”
Cause Title: H.Guruswamy & Ors. v. A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by Lrs. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 53)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Advocates Suraj Kaushik, Shivraj Singh, Abhishekh Singh, M/s. Nuli & Nuli
Respondents: Senior Advocate Rajesh Mahale, Advocates Parikshith Maliye, Anuradha Bhat, AOR Harisha S.R.
